Talk:Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist)

Please discuss here

IP 2001:569:5177:2900:9153:45DB:921A:48A3 is of course welcome to discuss their preferred edits here rather than edit warring. As should be clear from the fact that they've been reverted by three other editors (not to mention the discussions above which hinge on similar issues), consensus appears to be strongly against the changes they wish to make. While it's true that statements by the ADL and SPLC usually need to be attributed, in this case they are far from the only sources making the same claims. In cases such as this one, where there are abundant reliable sources stating the same thing, the reader is not served by equivocation. Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The only thing of note for Kevin MacDonald is that he is an antisemitic conspiracy theorist. Without that, there would be no article about him. If you edit the article so as to avoid saying this, the article is not being truthful about him.

It is wrong to describe his work on the subject as scholarly, since he has no training or background in Jewish history or culture. He is writing well outside his field of expertise, and cannot claim to be a scholar in the area. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Ordering of labels in lead sentence

Grayfell, I think you would have a better case for the current version if you could identify that there are more reliable sources describing him as a "conspiracy theorist" and "white supremacist" than a "psychologist." Otherwise the ordering you have in your version (first "conspiracy theorist", then "white supremacist", then "psychologist") makes no sense and gives activist vibes. My impression is that he's far more frequently described as a "psychologist" than those other labels, and when those other labels are used they are always subsequent to his initial description as a psychologist. (The only exception to this is in the Kriegman piece).

I'm also worried that the mention of the CSULB academic senate voting to disassociate itself from MacDonald's work is not due for the first paragraph of the lead. It should be mentioned in the article, of course, perhaps even in the lead, but the emphasis on it right away is strange. Academic senates aren't experts in the field, often just university bureaucrats. It's worth noting as well his department defended his right to freedom of expression ("We respect and defend his right to express his views..."). JDiala (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

MacDonald is not generally known as a psychologist in some abstract sense, he is only noteworthy because he is an antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist. Otherwise he likely wouldn't even meet WP:NPROF and wouldn't have an article at all. The goal of the first paragraph is to explain why people are noteworthy. This is a WP:FRINGE topic, and Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a bit misleading. It's not his conspiratorial views per se that make him notable (any schmuck can believe in a conspiracy theory, they don't automatically get famous) but rather that he is a professor with real academic bona fides that happens to hold these views. The edit I've suggested doesn't contribute to his public relations (as it still describes him as a conspiracy theorist, a white supremacist and every other epithet in the original version) nor does it fail the task of "[explaining] why [he is] noteworthy". As I've already asked you, you would have a stronger case if you presented multiple reliable sources which follow this ordering convention. Since you don't, I don't think your position has much merit. JDiala (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the scholarly source below that doesn't even mention MacDonald's academic bona fides in its opening sentence, see also these sources:

[1]

white nationalists and notable anti-Semite Kevin MacDonald

[2]

white nationalist Kevin MacDonald

[3]

another white nationalist named Kevin MacDonald

[4]

influential antisemite Kevin MacDonald

Generalrelative (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, but you have to compare that against sources which emphasize his status as a psychologist when introducing him, of which there are far more. JDiala (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The WSJ article is not whitewashing him, and it describes him as: "Kevin B. MacDonald, a 74-year-old psychologist and retired professor at California State University, Long Beach. Mr. MacDonald’s theories about Jews have become the philosophical and theoretical inspiration for white supremacist and nationalist movements." Something like that would be much more accurate and neutral than opening with him being a "conspiracy theorist" and other epithets. Roger (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Why privilege Wall Street Journal WP:RSOPINION over scholarly sources? See e.g.

[5]:

Kevin MacDonald is a key figure in shaping contemporary antisemitism for the Alt-Right

[6]:

Kevin Macdonald, a former professor and longstanding figure in the white supremacist movement

Seems to me that the current wording follows the best sources. Generalrelative (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The second source supports ordering with psychologist first, ironically undermining your argument against me above. JDiala (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Cherry picking, choosing one source out of 6.YBSOne (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There's far more as indicated in the link I've provided in the above sub-thread. This one was just particularly humorous (?) since it tends to undermine his own argument. JDiala (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Or they're just being meticulous, neutral and fair. YBSOne (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Their argument is that no matter if his (MacDonald's) academic title is presented first, the notability is through the fact of antisemitic conspiracy theories not his academics. YBSOne (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears that all of the sources describe him as a professor first. Besides the WSJ and GW Univ articles, the Blutinger article introduces him as: "Irving called Kevin MacDonald, an American Professor of Psychology from California State University, Long Beach (CSULB), to the witness box to testify. MacDonald was an odd choice for a witness in a lawsuit over Holocaust denial. A psychologist whose research focused on behavioral child development, ..." [7] These are all articles that are quite negative about MacDonald, and certainly not trying to whitewash him. WP ought to be at least as fair to him as these articles, and avoid the silly name-calling. Roger (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling an accurate description "silly name calling" is itself silly. Our goal isn't to ignore context, it is to summarize sources to provide context. The reason all those sources exist is because of the extremism and pseudoscience of his views. That is the context we should be summarizing. These sources do not exist because of any particular school he used to teach at. Adding weasel-words to undermine these countless sources is also inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The context isn't being ignored. The disagreement here is chiefly on ordering not inclusion. The suggestion we're making is more in concert with that of reliable sources as has been shown above (see my Google Scholar link). In general when the WP tone is notably more partisan and activist than the tone of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources then it's reasonable to raise the question of whether we're misrepresenting the source. JDiala (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I had previously tried to stay out of this discussion, but I would agree that the suggested change is warranted. A version of @Roger's suggestion would be better ("Kevin B. MacDonald, a 74-year-old psychologist and retired professor at California State University, Long Beach whose theories about Jews have become the philosophical and theoretical inspiration for white supremacist and nationalist movements" or something of that nature). Per MOS:LEAD (emphasis mine): When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm. As currently written, it overwhelms and thus comes across as biased (to clarify, that's not saying it is biased - I'm saying that it comes across that way - hence setting it up for accusations of things like "silly name-calling"). The suggested change doesn't suppress information, nor does it ignore context. Rather, it presents it in a more readable way that actually gives it context and sets it up better for the clarifying sentences that follow. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not accept that this overwhelms the article, and that framing seems like it's presenting a subjective opinion as though it were an objective observation. The majority of the body of the article is about his antisemitism and conspiracy theories, because that reflects the vast majority of sources. If sources are overwhelmingly about a specific aspect, placing this aspect front and center is the neutral approach. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, the point is that the adversarial tone presented in the article far exceeds what is present in reliable sources. As for subjectivity, there is nothing wrong with editors making subjective judgements for stylistic things. Words like "overwhelm", cited by Butlerblog above, are inherently subjective. I think it is reasonable to describe in the lead that he is a far-right evolutionary psychologist known for propagating racist views. However, there is no need to describe every little controversial thing he's ever said, or enumerate every epithet or mean thing anyone's said about him, which is what the lead currently comes off as. This is not encyclopedic and not aligned with the project's goals as it is rather activist. Note also that articles of comparable scholars like JP Rushton, Arthur Jensen and Amy Wax have far more moderate tones while still discussing the legitimate criticisms in the lead. JDiala (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: I do not accept that this overwhelms the article To be clear, that's talking about the opening sentence and the lead itself - not the article as a whole. As for "seems like it's presenting a subjective opinion as though it were an objective observation" that's actually more how it comes across to me as currently written with the recommendation seeming to be more objective. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with ButlerBlog and think a version of Roger's text is right. It's not that the current first sentence is objectively false; it's that it does not follow the MoS and is less informative. "Kevin B. MacDonald, a 74-year-old psychologist and retired professor at California State University, Long Beach whose theories about Jews have become the philosophical and theoretical inspiration for white supremacist and nationalist movements." tells us exactly who he is without any whitewashing at all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

An RfC might be in order since there is no consensus in the discussion. I do not believe that the tone of the lead is consistent with our BLP policy. JDiala (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not something I care enough about to fight over. I'm fine with the status quo, and I'd be fine with a re-ordering. It is helpful to keep his former position bundled with the subsequent CSULB info, so if we do re-arrange, I'd prefer it to look like "... is an American psychologist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. He is a retired professor of evolutionary psychology at California State University, Long Beach (CSULB). In 2008, the CSULB academic senate voted ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs) 12:03, August 16, 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, it seems like it's currently 4 (JDiala, Roger, ButlerBlog, BobFromBrockley) to 3 (Greywell, Generalrelative, YBSone) in favour of a change. Do you think this is adequate consensus to change? If not, what do you think the best next steps are (as noted above I was thinking of an RfC)? JDiala (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't support changing it. I am more persuaded by the arguments in favor of the current version, given the way he is discussed in the sources I've seen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't look like consensus to me, especially with Nomoskedasticity. I'd suggest giving another couple days for input to come in via BLPN before considering next steps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Undark

@JDiala: This is regarding this edit and subsequent reverts. Undark Magazine is a reliable non-profit news outlet affiliated with the Knight Science Journalism program. Undark has a history of fact-checking and corrections, and has won several significance journalism awards for its coverage of science. The specific article is by Michael Schulson, who is a contributing editor to the magazine. That he is a freelance writer is completely irrelevant. The paragraph is about MacDonald's purportedly scientific claims, and summarizes the position of experts on the topic. Nothing about this is a BLP violation. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, the issue at hand is not the source used but rather the misrepresentation of its content, as was pointed out in the edit summary. Both variants of the sentence in the recent sequence of reverts, namely "Others in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience..." and "Other scholars in his field dismiss the theory as pseudoscience..." are misrepresentations of the source, because they attribute a particular claim ("pseudoscience") to a class of people ("scholars", "Others in his field") when the article does not attribute this claim to anyone in said class of people. This is therefore a misrepresentation.

To elaborate on this, the word "pseudoscience" is used precisely twice in the article: (1) in the article title, and (2) in the sentence "And finally, why are ostensibly respectable, peer-reviewed journals — including one that counts intellectual luminaries like Harvard’s Steven Pinker and neuroscientist Sam Harris on its board — now publishing lavish defenses of what has been dismissed for decades as anti-Semitic pseudoscience?" For both (1) and (2), the claim can only be attributed to the voice of the author, Michael Schulson. But Michael Schulson is someone with no academic pedigree, so he should neither be referred to as a "scholar" nor as someone in MacDonald's field.

This is a clear misrepresentation of the source. You are attributing a claim to people who do not make the claim. Therefore, it's a serious BLP violation. In particular, this falls into Case 2 in WP:BLPREMOVE. As a courtesy, I will let you respond, but if you're not going to seriously engage with the points made, I will have to revert and continued edit warring will end up in WP:BLPN. I note that I was more generous in the above discussion in preserving the status-quo version, but that was more a stylistic disagreement. But this is a clear OR case in a contentious BLP so there really cannot be any tolerance.

As an addendum, not only does the source not support the attribution of the pseudoscience claim to other scholars, but it actually supports the opposite. It is implied in the piece that many scholars think MacDonald's work is legitimate. For instance, Cofnas writes that many scholars admire MacDonald's work secretly. Todd Shackelford, an evolutionary psychologist, describes the defence of the theory as "serious" and legitimizes defence of the work by publishing it in a reputable journal. JDiala (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Are we even reading the same sources? As the source explains, Cofnas was associated with Richard Lynn's Ulster Institute, which is about as fringe as it gets. As for "legitimize", I don't think you understood what the source was saying. Here is a relevant paragraph from the source:

Of course, there are many ideas — some with passionate followings — that don’t receive much attention in academic journals. These might include flat-earth theory, for example, or the belief in unicorns, or the theory that the federal government stages school shootings. To debate a theory like MacDonald’s is both to legitimize it and to tacitly accept some of its premises — namely, that there’s such a thing as a distinct, subtle “Jewish agenda” or “Jewish psychology” that exists in tension with white European society.[8]

Both the broader context and specifically the use of the word "tacitly" show us that the author is not saying that this is legitimate. He's saying that accepting the flawed premise of this theory would be an error.

The source is clear that MacDonald's claims are comparable to fringe views like flat-earth theories and school shooting hoaxes. 'Pseudoscience' seems like a reasonable way to summarize this.

So per many sources already cited, including the Undark one, this is a fringe perspective, and the only debate is how to handle it as a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You're not engaging with the argument. Schulson isn't a scholar. You need to identify precisely which "scholar" or member of MacDonald's "field" in the piece claims the work is "pseudoscience." If you cannot identify this, the claim is either to be removed or reworded in such a way that it reflects accurately what the source says.

In fact, what you are doing is particularly deceptive, a sort of motte-and-bailey fallacy. You are only addressing my last paragraph, fixating on the word "legitimate." But my last paragraph is described only as an addendum, interesting to point out but not the crux of the point being made and certainly not the core my argument hinges on. The core of my argument is that Schulson is a nobody and describing a nobody as a "scholar" is OR (and very badly done OR at that). JDiala (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The Undark article seems like a reasonable source to me, but the disputed sentence is not a good summary of it. Roger (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell It's also bizarre that you're implying Cofnas is bad because he was associated with Richard Lynn's Ulster Institute. But Cofnas' critiques are already included in the article! JDiala (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Bobfrombrockley You've added in Sandor Gilman as a source for this. Why is a historian qualified to assess whether the work of a psychologist is "pseudoscience" or not? JDiala (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I feel I have "engaged with the argument" more than is necessary. The end result of this argument is a defense of a discredited conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting fringe theories, and asking loaded questions in defense of these theories is not the way to change consensus.

As for Sander Gilman, I do not think that any explanation is necessary for why a scholar of both Jewish studies and the history of medicine would be qualified to discuss MacDonald's antisemitic psychological pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Just because you think he's a Really Bad Guy (TM) doesn't let you skirt policies. For Gilman, a historian is not a reliable source for a scientific claim. JDiala (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Gilman is one of the most important scholars of antisemitism today and also a major historian of medicine and of psychology. He’s very well qualified to use the term psuedo-science.

On Undark itself, one of the reasons this text is good in the lead is that the science journalist interviews a large number of other scholars to

identify the scholarly consensus (ie that MacD’s work is pseudo-science).

Further, this sentence in the lead doesn’t just rest on those citations; other scholars cited in the body say that same thing (see the scholarly response section under Reception). BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

RatatoskJones, here's the thing. On the specific issue of the Schulson piece, Grayfell has lost the argument. I have won. He is not able to explain why the source being cited justifies the claim made. It does not. If source X does not justify claim Y, it should not be used as a citation for claim Y even if source X is reliable. Now he's filibustering the discussion bringing up totally irrelevant points and personal attacks ("you're defending a discredited conspiracy theorist"). By filibustering he is able to pretend that there's "no consensus" and "discussion is still ongoing." This is not serious conduct. Since this is a BLP violation, I'm going to revert. Misrepresenting sources for what many would consider are libellous claims is a serious matter.

It is true that another source has been added to justify the claim (the Gilman piece). That is still being discussed, and I am happy to continue discussing it. But on the Schulson piece, it's not debatable, and Grayfell has not even attempted to engage on that for close to a week now. This is more than enough grounds to remove that reference from the claim made. JDiala (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

JDiala, here’s the thing: Wikipedia is not a gladiator forum for winning arguments; it’s a work in progress where editors seek consensus among their peers. If no other editors agree with you, you haven’t achieved consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. You have definitely not won and Grayfell has definitely not lost. What a bizarre comment. I find Grayfell's comments above persuasive and I read through the source from beginning to end. I see no reason to remove it. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

While I tend to err on the side of attributing statements that use value-laden labels, and no one is being quoted in this article using the word "pseudoscience" (which is the claim the source is supporting), it does seem fairly clear that's what is being said by the experts quoted. However, what's more important at this point is that achieving consensus isn't about winning or losing. And in the wiki-ideal, it's a little bit of give and take. Is anyone willing to rephrase the text in a way that everyone is satisfied? Perhaps "Other scholars and experts dismiss the theory as antisemitism analogous to older conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot to undermine European civilization." and then just keep the source (and/or expand on it)? Or does everyone have their heels dug in and it's all-or-nothing? ButlerBlog (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to ask a simple and direct question. Where in the Schulson piece does a scholar or expert assert that MacDonald's views are either pseudoscience or antisemetic conspiracy theories? Please provide direct quotations.

This is a matter of pivotal importance (see WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:BLP). If you are unable to provide a clear quotation substantiating why a source says what you claim it says, and instead go on rants about how MacDonald's an evil conspiracy theorist who mustn't be defended (Grayfell) or how JDiala is being really mean (all of the folks above --- except ButlerBlog, who while I disagree with him think is attempting to engage in a good-faith way), then, respectfully, I don't think you are making a policy-based argument. Misrepresenting sources is a cardinal sin here. JDiala (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence reveals this article to be a hatchet job. It does not match any of the sources. Roger (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll post on the BLP board to get extra eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's true that nobody quoted in the article uses that exact word, but the science journalist's words summarise the consensus: Robert Boyd, an anthropologist at Arizona State University and a senior figure in the field [said] “There’s no possibility of doing good science [on the topic on which MacDonald works]. The data are poor, people have very strong priors, and the issues are so charged that every discussion becomes instantly moralized.”... [Steven] Pinker told Undark in an email. “But both MacDonald’s theory and Dutton’s defense of it are extraordinarily weak"... [adding] his arguments “do resemble, point for point, venerable anti-Semitic tropes, with every proposition being invidious to Jews rather than described in scientifically neutral language.”... Aryeh Tuchman, associate director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, has been tracking MacDonald’s work for years. “I was struck by the way in which MacDonald incorporates age-old anti-Semitic tropes,” he said. “I was like, ‘Oh my gosh,” he continued, “I’ve studied this in graduate school, I’ve written papers about this, and now here’s a guy who’s actually doing it, in the wild, so to speak, and presenting it as science rather than simply an anti-Semitic gloss or portrayal of historical events or historical phenomena.’” BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This is SYNTH. "Not good science" (Boyd's statement) and "pseudoscience" are not the same. "Pseudoscience" is a discrediting term used to describe things entirely outside the scientific method. In general, it is fine not to use the exact word, but you need to be careful, especially when using a loaded term many would regard as an epithet ("pseudoscience"), that the word used accurately relays the views of the critics involved. Going from "impossible to do good science in this area because folks are biased and data is bad" (a correct summary of Boyd's position) to "MacDonald's work is pseudoscience" is insane.

Likewise, I do not see how you infer from Pinker's statement "pseudoscience." "Not scientifically neutral" does not imply "pseudoscience" either. It's entirely conceivable that MacDonald has strong priors, perhaps even that he hates Jews, and yet still produces work fundamentally in concert with the scientific method. Pinker is also an exceptionally poor source as he admits to not having read the work.

Finally, this all fails to account for the fact that Shackelford, one of the scholars cited in the piece, defends the legitimacy of the work. So we have a rather one-sided usage of this article where only criticism is deemed serious, but those like Shackelford and Dutton who agree with the work are not considered. This is an NPOV violation. JDiala (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree about the synth/paraphrasing which might be true if it was just Boyd, but given that all three experts are saying more or less the same way. Maybe "bad science" is a better summary, but in the other footnotes (and later in the body) we have others saying "psuedo-science" so it seems better.

Similarly, Pinker alone might be a bad source, but we're not quoting him and he's clearly saying the same as the others so part of the consensus.

Shackleford does not defend McDonald's work or its legitimacy. He mainly comments on Dutton's. His only comment on MacDonald is as follows: In my conversation with Shackelford... he argued that it was important to debate controversial ideas openly. “We need to be careful about writing something off because it upsets us,” he told me. “If MacDonald is wrong,” he said, “let’s see why he’s wrong.” BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I am very grateful to have read the Undark article. On the merits of the publication and the contents of the article, it appears to me to be quite reliable, and our article would be stronger if it summarized Schulson's in more places in the body and lead. That said, I agree with JDiala that it should be removed as a citation for the current line in the lead. Schulson's piece does not support the idea that experts call MacDonald's work pseudoscientific. It does name two experts that draw connections between MacDonald's work and antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories. With a little rewriting, we could keep the citation. Maybe something like "Scholars and antisemitism experts dismiss the theory as pseudoscience,(citations to other references go here) and experts describe it as analogous to older conspiracy theories about a Jewish plot to undermine European civilization.(citation to Undark)"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Undark article directly says in its opening section that MacDonald's work has been dismissed for decades as anti-Semitic pseudoscience. This is treated by the source as a basic fact and the article would be radically different if it didn't start from that position. In other words, that this is pseudoscience is a central point of the source, regardless of how many times it uses that specific term.

To clarify an earlier point, Pinker did read the paper. His comments were made after he read the paper in response to Undark's request for a comment. I have a lot of problems with Pinker, but this isn't one of them. He waited until after he had read the source to comment on it, which is a lot better than the alternatives.

As the article points out, MacDonald's work has been on the fringes for decades. This specific point is also supported by many additional sources which are already cited. Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This has been explained to you repeatedly. The "dismissed for decades as anti-Semitic pseudoscience" statement can only be attributed to Schulson, who is not a scholar. It is not attributed to any expert he interviewed, so we cannot write "scholars think it's pseudoscience." On the Pinker thing, you're again employing a deceptive argumentative tactic that you employed earlier. As it turns out, Pinker did read the paper following the request, but this is not the key reason why you citing Pinker in this context is inappropriate. The key reason I gave was that "Likewise, I do not see how you infer from Pinker's statement "pseudoscience." "Not scientifically neutral" does not imply "pseudoscience" either. It's entirely conceivable that MacDonald has strong priors, perhaps even that he hates Jews, and yet still produces work fundamentally in concert with the scientific method." You failed to respond to this more serious concern and only went after a comparatively minor point written subsequently. He's not calling it pseudoscience. This is all that matters. JDiala (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Undark article is a useful reference, but not for the claim that MacDonald's work is pseudoscience. It does not start from that premise. It starts by saying "MacDonald, an emeritus professor of psychology at California State University, Long Beach, has complained that his work receives scant attention from academics". The pseudoscience comment is a question in the seventh paragraph, and then used by the editor as a subtitle. The WP article would be more neutral if it introduced MacDonald as Schulson does -- an emeritus professor whose main work is controversial and largely ignored. Roger (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Schulson evidently considers MacDonald's work pseudoscience, and that many parts of the article rely on that. I just agree with JD's point that this can not reasonably be summarized as "Other scholars and antisemitism experts dismiss the theory as pseudoscience". I'd be happy to find other ways to get Schulson's point across. Since Schulson mentions dismissal (on the grounds of pseudoscience) without mentioning who is doing it, we could go with something like "MacDonald's theory has also been dismissed as pseudoscience,(Schulson) including by scholars and antisemitism experts.(other citations)" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Schulson is not saying that he has personally spent decades dismissing MacDonald's work as pseudoscience, so this isn't presented as an opinion. Instead I read this as a summary which is explained later in the source, which is the norm with this kind of journalistic writing. Schulson mentions who is doing this dismissal. With a few exceptions, though, mainstream evolutionary psychologists have long ignored MacDonald’s work ... As experts have pointed out ... quoting academics who say "There’s no possibility of doing good science." ... "[MacDonald’s theory] is not derivable from the foundational ideas of evolutionary psychology." etc. It really isn't an extraordinary claim to say that MacDonald's views are on the far fringes of academia and have been for decades. This isn't just a key point of the source, it's the foundation of the source which exists to explain a more subtle point about how these extreme views can filter into superficially legitimate academia. Grayfell (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not an extraordinary claim at all, and we have other sources that are making it, presumably explicitly (I haven't looked). This one doesn't. I don't think those quotes necessarily lead to the interpretation you have, which I think is reasonable but not certain enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)